A new thread for discussion of matters American, as the polls return to level pegging following the Republicans’ convention bounce.
US election minus 48 days
Analysis and discussion of elections and opinion polls in Australia
A new thread for discussion of matters American, as the polls return to level pegging following the Republicans’ convention bounce.
I hope you’re not claiming to have written that, Diogenes
It’s reality check time for rusted on Obama supporters instead of pretending he is either a messiah or supported preventing this financial mess
I produce Senate voting records (#99) proving 90% of Democrats including Biden voted for th deregulation Bill (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) My point being both politcal Partys incl McCain supported this Bill and specificaly 90% of Democrats INCLUDING your VP BIDEN so they’re all responsible My challenge is : disprove it ??
I produce evidence (#138) proving Obama received th 2nd highest total donations from Sub Prime culprits Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac over a 19 year period of ALL 550 odd congress pollies , despite only being there just 4 years
.
(Obama $126,349 vs McCain $21550) My challenge is : disprove it ??
I say these donations made Obama ‘compromised’ preventing Obama demanding proper regulation of Sub Prime culprits Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in 2006 Senate
My challenge is : disprove it ??
I produce evidence from Senate records of McCain on 6th May 2006 demanding regulation of Sub Prime culprits Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and accurately FORCASTING
this financial mess without it My challenge is : disprove it ??
(or do you want me to quote th speech ?)
Rusted on liberal elitiest egg heads faction of supporting Obama with 000’s of red herring posts misleading those who don’t hav time to research , does not camoflage Obama’s ‘compromised’ above donations nor his (& all Partys) abject complicity not to act to prevent this financial markets collapse , despite McCain’s 2006 provable accurate warnings
Believing phoney Obama is 100% perfect and maverick McCain is 100% always wrong shows reel objectivity Want regulation go to democrat left wing Gore Hillary & Edwards & there Keynes type economic beliefs , an economic philosophy Obama rejects
Adam
No it got sent to me “as is” by a friend. There was no authorship or reference, so I just stuck it up. I thought it was quite funny.
Ron, why try and convince us? We don’t get to vote. whether any of us support Obama or not will make not one jot of difference to the result. I still hope Obama gets in. The last thing we need is a continuation of the Bush years. Full stop.
Ron
That’s a straw man argument and you know it. No-one has ever said McCain is 100% bad and Obama is 100% good, except on Daily Kos. Anyone can cherry-pick facts but the preponderance of the evidence shows that McCain has been a supporter of deregulation and Obama is more moderate, probably akin to the view of most Aussie politicians (we don’t seem to have a right wing party calling for open slather).
We had one in the 1970s, started by John Singleton and variously called the Progress Party and the Workers’ Party. It was a pure free market libertarian party, though not especially “right wing” otherwise. It found some support in WA, but fizzled away after Hawke was elected. Economic libertarianism cuts so strongly against the grain of Australian political culture that I doubt it will ever find an audience. There is of course a libertarian faction in the Liberal Party, but they have majorly disappointed by both Fraser and Howard, who despite their rhetoric both turned into high-taxing big-spending nixonian populist opportunists.
#155
you did NOT challenge a single fact I posted in my #152 blog
Adam
The pure free market libertarian party was called the Worker’s Party! You’re kidding me.
Nope. It was meant to suggest that the capitalists were the real “workers”, while the unions and the public sector were sponging off them.
Gary Bruce
This first comment is not for your comment on : I hav been disengenuously criticised over Obama for months by a band “pretend” Labor supporters that allows them credibility…who ar in fact either Greens and or intellegentsia “political correctness” who hav little interst in Labor practicle solutions of equity & social justice Abit of illusion here “casting” me rather than th info/facts I provide To me they’re just keystrokes
Secondly , I realize you ar a dinkum Labor supporter I hav no problem with any reel Labor person supporting Obama and not wanting another Bush I would never therefore critiscise a reel Labor person at all for doing so But I’m yet to encounter a RUSTED ON 100% committed Obama supporter who is
However for me , having done extensive research I’ve found Obama is not a reel “left” pollie in fundamental Labor type areas like universal healthcare , Kyoto or even his economic philosophies etc etc So I can not support him
Obviously I can never support McCain because he’s “right’ even though he’s less Republican than most Republicans That does not stop me from objectively agreeing with some things he says , even though he’d never ever get my “vote”
So that makes me an “informal voter” Others who hav misgivings about Obama (but ar not 100% rusted on) will now support Obama …no query from me However I must say from my research that if I thought McCain was another Bush (but he is not) , then I’d probably be forced on principal to support Obama as another Bush would be a nightmare
Apart from Obama’s protectionism severely hurting oz farmers & exporters & FA , his electon will not affect my life so I blog solely out of ‘interest’ , however if he’s elected I will still drink with my mates & support my footy team & Kevin07 with POTUS Obama simply just another overseas politican getting 15 seconds on my TV set from time to time
160 – fair enough Ron. Collingwood I hope.
Gary , well 90% of posters believe th anti Ron “casting” , and you can tell how much I’m worried about that
No , not Magpies , nor if it helps eith th Bombers or Blues Actualy as a non Magpie & non Interstate team supporter , I’ve never understood why they’re so disliked & aprt from my side never mind them winning …at his point GG will need a scotch
Ron
As a matter of interest, what IS Obama’s health policy. I must admit I took it for granted he would support a type of universal health care. To not do so would be a complete sell out of ordinary working Americans when they need all the help from government they can get. Although I’m not a Hilary fan, I’m fairly sure she would have pushed for it because she tried it once before under Bill Clinton and the vested interests blocked her.
Obama has said many times that if he is elected President everyone will be healthy. Also wealthy and wise, and beautiful too. Furthermore, the sun will shine, birds will sing, the oceans will rise (or is it fall?), and the planet will be healed. Love, peace and sexual fulfillment will reign upon the earth. Millions believe this, and if only cynics like Darn could believe it too, it would happen.
Adam
What did I say which could in any way be interpreted as cynical?
OK, “sceptics” then. You expressed scepticism about Obama having a health policy. That is nearly as sinful as cynicism.
Adam
If anything I simply expressed a lack of knowledge about Obama’s health policy. Perhaps you are reading some of your own apparent cynicism into what other people are really saying.
You need faith, not knowledge. Just join the millions who trust that Obama will solve everything by the sheer power of love, hope, audacity, rhetoric and things his father told him.
As Gary correctly said , no one changes there pre conceived opinions nevertheless info follows
In April this year at th HEIGHT of close Primary election contest between Hillary and Obama , when both desperately wanted Edwards support , Elizabeth Edwards who NO Democrat would ever dare criticise for her longterm passionate support for Universal healthcare
…and yet Elizabeth Edwards conscience forced her to publicly support Hillary’s universal healthcare policy ….such was Obama’s NON universal healthcare plans
Obviously given sensitivity of th close race & John Edwards then wish not to pick sides her carefully chosen words need to be read in that specific context
‘In an interview with “Good Morning America,” Robin Roberts in april 2008 Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards defended her surprise support for Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health plan today over the approach advocated by her rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Elizabeth Edwards said “she believed Clinton’s health-care plan was more inclusive than that of Obama’s.”
Futher she said “You need that universality in order to get the cost savings. … I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton’s policy than Sen. Obama’s on this particular issue,”
If you wish specific details proving Hillarys (and incidently John Edwards almost identical universal healthcare Plan) WERE universal healthcare vs Obama’s which is a dressed up John Howard “free market” if you can pay good luck to you policy with typical John Howard “subsidies” (except for kids) , plus no specific end cost per user , then happy to give you details
Obama’s health plan matchs & is consistent with his nuanced free market economic philosophy , whereas Edwards & Hillarys match & is consistent with Labor type economic philosophies
and for goodness sake don’t quote his disengenuous pretty words geek site , its sfull of as much reel relevance and carefully crafted words for th rusted on to believe as th bullsh.t listed by him under CC
I am not sure of Obama’s health policy but better no policy than this policy –
McCain on banking and health
OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.
Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/
Sometimes I don’t think he is really trying.
QUESTION directed to me was about Obama’s NON support for universal healthcare plan …red herrings posts away from that to mcCain ar typical rusted on Obama supporters red herrings posts…more will follow
REFER my #169 for details
Why universality & universal healthcare needed ?
Well there ar 45 million US people with NO healthcare Insurance , and a consevative minimum of a further 390 million under insured
When they ar sick or there kids ar , and this is not th liberal elitists but th ‘poor’ we ar talking about , they often just don’t bloody go to a doctor OR rarely do or use there “medical expertise” to decide OR not depending on little monies they hav
….pretty basic “healthcare universalality” Labor philosophy needed to me that Obama does not support
correction 45 million uninsured and a further 30 million (not 390 million) under insured
Adam (168)
“You need faith, not knowledge. Just join the millions who trust that Obama will solve everything by the sheer power of love, hope, audacity, rhetoric and things his father told him”
And you call ME cynical. .
.
Ron and Thomas
Thank you for your respective replies on health care. It’s disappointing that Obama apparently doesn’t have a universal health care policy, but it’s hard to make a case for McCain on that issue.
Obama’s health policy here.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Hahahahah Unbelievable – Republican Rangle calls Palin disabled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvovJ1Q-Ogg&eurl=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/
Rangel is a Democrat.
woop yes Dem.
If I say it enough times to myself, I might just believe it. There is no difference between Obama and McCain on healthcare and financial deregulation.
McCain on banking and health
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
Jonathan has a good article on the Wall St woes. McCain really has botched his response. He’s flip-flopped like a leaf in Hurricane Ike. When he said that the economy is not his strong point, it set the stage (note to self; if you ever enter politics don’t ever be modest or tell the truth). His comment that the fundamentals of the economy are strong is described as “the biggest faux pas committed by either of them all year.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13649.html
Palin may have boosted McCain after the convention, but it’s my opinion that she’ll tank more and more as moderates consider what a true right-winger she is. This will have the effect of dragging McCain down.
As to Hillary, she was extremely divisive, hated by the Right and many Indies, and would never have got much over 50%. I think Obama can probably win by a substantial margin, but we’ll see. The first pres debate is next Sat morning our time.
I agree. Getting a bit sick of the Hillary love-fest in here saying that she would being doing alot better than Obama right now. I reckon she just might not have been, and that her and Bill’s dirty laundry would have most certainly have been aired to re-energise the Repubs if she was in the race.
Dario @ 184,
Quite so. The Clintonistas keep telling us she would have done better, but it’s not provable, nor disprovable. All we do know is that Obama, with much less public profile than Hillary 18 months ago, outwitted her in the primary contest.
If Obama wins the whole “Hillary would have done better” thing will become a historical footnote, a bit like discussing whether McCain would have been a better President than Bush if he’d been nominated in 2000.
If Obama loses the question will be one of the great historical what-ifs, and the launching pad for Hillary 2012. But still nothing more than interesting conjecture, ultimately.
By the way, I agree with comments of Diogenes and others that the race is looking good for Obama now.
One caveat though: this election has had so many twists, it wouldn’t amaze me if there was more to come.
Diogenes @ 182,
McCain’s comment about his lack of knowledge of the economy is a classic example of why many people can’t help liking him, notwithstanding his irascibility and his crappy VP pick. What other serious politician would say something like that? Much more fun than the cardboard cut-outs who abound these days.
DARN & Gary
#175
“It’s disappointing that Obama apparently doesn’t have a universal health care policy, but it’s hard to make a case for McCain on that issue.”
Yes you ar right on both counts Darn , Obama does not hav a universal healthcare policy It was reason I quoted Elizabeth Edwards in my #169 because no one in USA has more credbility on pushing for universal healthcare than her Yes I agree also re McCains that yuo did not ask my opinion of , its a free market p[olicy ..anti Labor principal
PS/ to avoid confusion , i quote very first 3 lines of Obama’s from his site:
“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday’s health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American”
Th disengenuous words “covering every American” is th same as McCains policy which also “covers” every American Its clever use of th word “cover” when they should corectly use th word “addresses” every American…what both Obama & McCain policys do is of course ADDRESS every American (but every american under both there policys is not “covered” !!…unless th “poor” chose to be covered and IF th “poor” can afford to be covered !!..so would a Howard policy “cover” every Aussie
Whereas universal healthcare automatically covers all citizens Adults & kids and at a fixed cost per citizen’s weekly wage…then a ‘gap’ fee for usage
Daily Kos Tracking Poll
Obama hits 50%
Obama 50%
McIdiot 42%
Also, the gloss is fading from Sarah Palin, she’s starting to become a real liability for McCain.
I think the polls showed the other day that Palin’s popularity was waning fast. The danger with that is that people will then begin to look at all dirt on her, the stories and her lack of appropriate experience etc and mark her down. It was a neccessary gambit I guess but maybe McCain will wish he chose the one he really wanted.
If Troopergate delivers before the election as it is meant to (goodness knows what kind of legal tricks the Repubs have up their sleeves) then it could get ugly
I think the trend towards Obama will continue. I don’t really see what McCain has to counter it. There is still a lot more bad stuff to come out about the US finance scandals. Even if it is stabiised now, Obama and Biden can point out the huge amount of public money that has gone into cleaning up the mess – hundreds of billions. And there are still job cuts and a recession to follow.
Personaly I wouldn’t descrie myself as a Clintonista – my firest preference was Gore then Edwards, then Clinton and then Obama with others discounted. I have nothing against Obama and still think he can (and now should) win. But I felt that the media hype around him was more than what was warranted. I still think Hillary could have responded to events quickly and well if she had the chance. But its academic – after all the scandals of Bush, and now a recesion to boot, Obama really should win from here.
From Andy at EV. It’s going to take at least a week for the ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to fade from the voters memory, which will take us to the debates. Is McCain going to win voters over with his confused rhetoric, hopelessly tangled flip-flopping on the economy delivered like a walking cadaver? Not bloody likely. Remember that McCain has to pretend to be a staunch small government Reaganite and a market reformer simultaneously, Obama just has to pretend he knows something about the economy.
Perhaps Yup-Yup will thrash Biden in her debate with her superior knowledge. Or perhaps she’ll go the “wardrobe malfunction” route for a few votes.
And Andy agrees with earlier commentators about this;
Diogenes
That is a good point on the one trillion dollar cost of the bailouts. It is why the Republicans deseve so much criticism of their economic record under Bush. Neither side really proposed a solution to the problems of the CDO/CDS fraud until it was too late. But in a time of prosperity the budget should have been in surplus to have cash on hand for something like this. Instead their huge debt means they will take a long time to pay off the bill and recover. I’d hate to be a public servant asking for more money for health care in the US in the next few years. There won’t be any. Think of Victoria in the early 90s.
The selfishness and petulence of the stock market players is unbelievagle. They just get a $500bn – $700bn gift from the govt to save their arses and now they complaining that they wont be allowed to play the game exactly the same way they did before. These traders ought to feel grateful they haven’t had to jump of any roofs.
Markets Soar, but New Rules Upset Traders
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20markets.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Gallup Daily – BO 50 – McCain 44
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110551/Gallup-Daily-Obama-50-McCain-44.aspx
BO’s rating equals his highest ever…
ANd ABC will be showing the debate live next Saturday (11am I think)
TP
That article is absolutely breath-taking. These guys have stuffed up so enormously that the Government has had to create a $1 TRILLION “Bad Bank” to take over all their worthless bad debts, using either the largesse of the American tax-payers or by “debasing the coin” (which was Diogenes’ prophetic crime BTW) and causing inflation. This gets them out of the biggest hole since the Depression and lets them keep their jobs of losing investors money with no repercussions. And then they whinge that there a few minor restrictions.
Here’s another brilliant article on the Wall St Bailout, which is being referred to as Capitalist Socialism. He savages the Democrats for, yet again, blindly doing what Bush tells them to do because it’s politically expedient and they don’t like asking questions.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/20/bailout/
Anyone who tries to blame the Democrats for this is a joke IMO
Does anyone think that Bush’s massive trillion dollar bail out (a good move IMHO) will assist the McCain campaign?